Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/846

the appellant was made a party in the original cause, merely as one of the co-heirs of Redmond and Mary Barry, and was in no sort concerned in the cross cause.

V. That by the said decree, all the defendants except Henrietta and James Barry were to have their costs out of the estate, though several of them were not brought to hearing.

VI. That the appellant was thereby decreed to join in conveyances to the purchasers, of such parts of the estate as should be sold for payment of the legacies: for all which, and divers other imperfections appearing in the body of the decrees, the appellant was advised, that they ought to be reviewed and reversed, and prayed a review and reversal accordingly.

To this bill the respondents Richard and Susannah Townsend, Elizabeth Dunscombe, and Richard Barry, pleaded in part, and demurred as to other part; and by their plea, to so much of the bill as sought to review, reverse, or impeach the decree of the 12th of July 1759, or to impeach the directing the several, or any of the accounts thereby directed, or the manner in which the same were thereby directed, for the pretended errors alledged in the bill; or as sought to impeach or reverse either of the decrees, under pretence that the original cause never was at issue as against the appellant, or under pretence that the decrees, or either of them, was or were founded upon depositions taken in the original cause, or under pretence that the appellant could not examine any witnesses on behalf of himself, or cross examine any of the witnesses who were examined on the part of the plaintiffs in the original cause; or which assigned for error, that by the last of the decrees, the suns reported due on account of the legacies devised by the will and codicil of Mary Barry, and also the legacies charged by the will of Redmond Barry upon his real estate, were directed to be paid; or in default thereof, that the real estate of Redmond Barry, or a sufficient part thereof, should be sold, or which assigned for error, that the appellant was decreed to join in conveyances to the purchasers of such part of the said estate as should be sold for payment of the said legacies; they pleaded the several facts before stated, and averred the truth thereof; and therefore, and by reason of the appellant's acquiescence in the proceedings, and inasmuch as he had assigned, or parted with his whole interest under the decree of July 1759, and had no interest in the matters contained in the present bill, and [118] that Sir James Cotter had purchased his interest with full notice, and upon the footing of the decree of July 1759; and also by reason of Sir James's own acquiescence under that decree, and his suppression of the pretended want of a replication to the appellant's answer, until after he had compelled the defendants and the other plaintiff's in the original cause to inroll the decrees, the defendants pleaded the same in bar.

And as to such part of the bill as sought to review or reverse the decrees, for any other of the pretended errors assigned in the bill, and not before pleaded to, they demurred; and for cause of demurrer said, there were no such errors appearing upon the face or in the body of the decrees, etc.

The respondents Samuel and Elizabeth Sedgeley put in the like plea and demurrer, and both being heard on the 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th of December 1766, by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; his Lordship on the 17th, allowed the pleas and demurrers, with costs.

From this order the appellant, on behalf of Sir James Cotter, appealed: contending (W. de Grey, C. Yorke), that the original bill in this cause was brought by the respondents Townsend and Sedgley, who were not only two of the heirs at law, but also the principal legatees under the will of Mary Barry, for proving her will and codicil, and also the will of Redmond Barry, and to perpetuate the testimony of the several witnesses thereto; that the appellant by his answer, put the respondents upon the proof of these wills and codicil; to this answer the respondents never replied, as they themselves admitted by their own plea to the bill of review; where they endeavoured to excuse this omission, by charging it to the neglect of their agent, who was by their means likewise employed for the appellant. It must however be admitted, that as the appellant's answer was never replied to, he could not produce or examine any witnesses whatever, as to the validity and execution of the several wills and codicil; so that, as to him, the hearing was on bill and answer only. That the decree of 1764 directed, that the sum reported due for principal and interest of the legacies devised by the pretended will of Redmond Barry, and the pretended will